Heartland

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/050613/325/fl22l.html

Good.

But nowt so queer as folk. To put it lightly.

So, life's "back to Normal" for the guy then ?

Just like OJ...

Money talks and Jackson walks. Bullsh1t.

I don't know what to think. On the one hand, if he is innocent, then he's a victim of something no-one deserves. On the other, if he's guilty, he's a f**king dangerous man.

Meh.

I liked that lady who kept releasing doves outside the court though! He fairly brings the nutters out of the woodwork, you've got to hand it to him...

innocent or guilty, his behaviour towards minors is still grossly inapproriate, as has been his general conduct and lack of respect during the trial.

its just a shame that he's so detached from reality that this won't have been the reality check he so badly needs

I think it would have to be a pretty hefty check unfortunately QB.

Quiff Boy wrote:innocent or guilty, his behaviour towards minors is still grossly inapproriate, as has been his general conduct and lack of respect during the trial.

its just a shame that he's so detached from reality that this won't have been the reality check he so badly needs

I think it's a shame that a jury didn't dare convict him just because he's someone famous.

Face it, anyone else who had admitted sharing a bed with under-age boys would not be seeing daylight for a long time.

Bit of a surprise really.

I was rather perplexed by the jurors reasons for aquitting had a lot to do with the lack of (physical) evidence and in the end it came down to believing one person over another.

Child abuse cases rarely have any evidence, except where photos and video of the abuse was taken for later 'pleasure', as the abusers go to extreme lengths to make sure there isn't any, and the abuse is inherently secretive in nature and the victimes often unaware until many years later of the significance of what happened, by which time the shame sets in and the 'deniability' by both parties becomes the significant factor.

Having admitted to sharing a bed with the child in question, and to have watched hard core pornography with him, I'm not sure how much more evidence of intent the jurors required.

Obviously more than I would have done but there you are.

What's the betting on an OJ type civil trial to follow where guilt is on the basis of probability rather than beyond reasonable doubt ?

mik wrote:What's the betting on an OJ type civil trial to follow where guilt is on the basis of probability rather than beyond reasonable doubt ?

Highly probable IMO. It was already being touted round as a possibility weeks ago IIRC.

they saved the best till last

oh, i'm bad

TTFN

He looks like w weirdo and behaves like a weirdo... Especially after the Balcony and the baby incident... Sorry... but maybe his children's mum should think about getting the custody anyway?

He's surrounded by yes-men (and women, and um... probably children as well, oh and monkeys), that's his problem.

That baby over the balcony incident was just incredibly sad, I thought. What is going to happen to those kids? Walking around in veils and conceived by a turkey baster. I hope for their sake he doesn't go bankrupt because I imagine the shrink's bill will be pretty high.

They'd have locked him up if he was black.

Batfish wrote:They'd have locked him up if he was black.

boudicca wrote:That baby over the balcony incident was just incredibly sad, I thought.

I remember my dad dangling me over tower bridge. Put hairs on me chest.

Almiche V wrote:

boudicca wrote:That baby over the balcony incident was just incredibly sad, I thought.

I remember my dad dangling me over tower bridge. Put hairs on me chest.

Character-building eh?

Well, then you're a case in point. Would you say you are a well-adjusted individual?

boudicca wrote: Character-building eh?

Well, then you're a case in point. Would you say you are a well-adjusted individual?

Heh heh. I'm ok and like to do it on trampolines with a watery base. It's everybody else y'see.

true or not: Unguilty is the verdict. and that is what he is for me.
I'm sure he is a nutcase and whatever his motives for his strang acts are I'm sure as hell he is a perfect target for lawyers and others after money or fame....

though - as a parent I wouldn't let my children that close to any celeberty/person like happend here.

I could never decide if I thought he was guilty or innocent and I almost felt a bit sorry for him at one point. I really don't know what I think about this to be honest

Brideoffrankenstein wrote:I could never decide if I thought he was guilty or innocent and I almost felt a bit sorry for him at one point. I really don't know what I think about this to be honest

I'm not sure either. I think there's been a lot of witchhunting and I don't honestly think he's been kiddyfiddling as such. He seemed genuinely outraged and disgusted when Martin Bashir suggested that he did, but I suppose it's quite possible that he's so deluded that he could abuse and be in total denial about it. Still, the way he relates to children is possibly equally damaging to them, and in doing so he sets himself up for a lot of grief time and time again. I don't understand how he can't see how screwed up it is to fawn all over children (particularly the cuter little boys), have his favourites living with him for weeks on end pretending life is one long slumber party, and then presumeably drop them like hot potatoes once they reach their sell-by dates. He's too damaged to see what he's doing, let alone change his behaviour. And the leeches and sycophants he attracts aren't going to risk a good source of income (or a lawsuit) for a reality check, no matter how much needed.

I think he's really screwed up from his childhood (or lackthereof) and from whatever drugs he's taken/is on. His life has never really been realistic so I can undertand to a certain extent why he doesn't have a hold on things realistically ie he doesnt know "right" from "wrong," or at least this society's definition of it since he's never had to. Whether or not he did do everything or anything, I don't think he's a threat to society. I'm not afraid of him sneaking into my room at night or raping me in some alley. "Plying with alcohol" and "lewd touching" of minors...whatever.

I don't think he's your average everyday celebrity, either. He's in a category of his own in my opinion and no one else that I can think of has such a history and life as he and the fact that his whole life has more or less been made public can't be ignored. One reason for trials is to look at something on an individual basis and this is no exception.

Quiff Boy wrote:innocent or guilty, his behaviour towards minors is still grossly inapproriate, as has been his general conduct and lack of respect during the trial.

its just a shame that he's so detached from reality that this won't have been the reality check he so badly needs

Ditto. I think he possibly is guilty as charged, i just wonder if he even realises whats right or wrong anymore as he lives in a bubble where i think its fair to say that normal social laws dont have to apply. I think what hes admitted to proves that.

So hard though as if he is innocent then as has also been said no-one deserves it.... but aS Quiff says "grossly inapproriate" is the order of the day.

Paddy

No matter wether he's guilty or not, I'm with Christophe on this one: As a parent I'd NEVER let my child join such a "party". Did they get paid to have their children be with Jacko or what? How sick is this? And what did they expect of an adult who prefers to spend his time with little boys instead of adult people?

one of the jurors wrote:I feel that Michael Jackson probably has molested boys. But that doesn't make him guilty of the charges that were presented in this case - and that's where we had to make our decision.

just about sums it up for me. amazing that the prosecution let it go to trial without a watertight case but i guess that's what happens when the only people prepared to speak out come across as money-grabbing trailer trash.

Let the babysitting resume.